Sarah Palin's downfall will bring relief to some victims, pain and shame to others

Sarah Palin's ethical challenges are legendary and Geoffrey Dunn's book, coming out on Tuesday, promises to bring a few fresh skeletons out of Sarah's closet.

We would be naive to believe that Sarah Palin is unique in her behaviour. We could compile a long list of politicians, business people, religious leaders and other prominent characters in public life who employ the very same tactics. There are opportunistic liars everywhere.

They lie about their credentials, embellish their resumes; they form useful alliances, building their personal empires on the shoulders of others, later discarding them (when they don't resort to destroying them); they claim to offer solutions and use all the available self-promotion tools at their disposal. They are very tenacious in their efforts.

These people may be famous and powerful or they may be small time opportunists. We read about the famous and sometimes we suffer the small time ones on a personal level. Ironically, victims of small time crooks suffer the most, as there's no public exposure, no vindication. It's painful to see oneself as a complete fool in silence, trying to deal with uneasy feelings all alone.

Why do some people behave like this? The short answer is that they enjoy power and money. Of course, there are ethical, honest people who enjoy these two addictive motivating factors as well. The difference lies in how their goals are achieved.

The honest high achiever will not use other people as stepping stones, he will share his accomplishments with those who help them along the way. The honest person will sense a good opportunity, but won't resort to empty flattery to get people on board just to threaten or discard them when no longer useful in the process of reaching his goals. The honest achiever doesn't believe the ends justify the means.

Sarah Palin's supporters sincerely believe she's a benign, misunderstood character in the soap opera politics has become these days. There are people, like Geoffrey Dunn, Joe McGinniss and others, who have worked to expose the tactics she employed and the casualties that litter the way of her ascent to power, money and fame.

It could well be that her fame will be her undoing. She may fall from grace very spectacularly and the people she left in her path will have the satisfaction of witnessing her fall. Her supporters will suffer with her, but there are many opportunists who will continue to behave badly, taking advantage of others with impunity. Sarah Palin is not very good at covering her tracks, but some people are. They can perform their dirty deeds, undetected, for a long, long time. Their victims may never become aware that they've been used. Con artists after power and money count on the support of people who believe they act in earnest.

It's an age old game.

Of course, those in the political arena are the ones capable of causing damage to the greatest number of people.

Palingates watches Sarah Palin. I hope there's somebody out there watching the others...

$arah Pac

I don't have much time for blogging today. We have to take the car to the mechanic in a nearby village and then we're staying over there for dinner with friends. But I'll leave you with a couple of bits, just to keep the conversation going:

SarahPac's website was redesigned and it's now absolutely awful:


Money is still the first priority, of course... Sarah also likes to be invited to attend events, and the section includes media requests!


There's no mention of her family. In the good old days, they were the First Family and all the children were state officials:

[The media again...]

As governor she couldn't charge for her appearances, but liked to help herself to state money so she could see her children. When she was ordered to reimburse the state $10,000 for some of her children's travel expenses, she issued a press release:

“This is a big state, and I am obligated to — and intend to — keep Alaskans informed and meet with them as much as I can, from Barrow to Marshall to Ketchikan,” Palin said in a written statement. “At the same time, I am blessed to have a large and loving family, and the discharge of my duties should not prevent me from spending time with them.”

As long as somebody else paid for it...

Quitting on the state of Alaska was definitely a good move for Sarah Palin. She has made many millions of dollars and nobody can question her ethics anymore. She would be wise to continue to extract money from her supporters for as long as she can without actually running for office. If she does, the ghosts of ethics past would come back to haunt her.

Yesterday, our reader sick of Sarah posted this:

Sarah and Bristol read that Obama only made 1.7 million this year.

Sarah turned to Bristol and said, "I can make that much doing 10 speeches.. why would anyone work that hard for so little money?"

Bristol said, "Yeah mom, I made that much dancing and speaking and did not even break a sweat. You're right mom, Obama must be a fool to work that hard for so little money."

President Obama has a very different attitude regarding his own good fortune and is respectful of other people's money.



There couldn't be a greater contrast between Sarah Palin, the grifting celebrity, and president Obama, the guy with a true servant's heart.

Sarah Palin's ethics

The list of "The Palingates" is long, but one gate has many, may posts: Ethics. There are 68 posts dedicated to the topic! (69 when this one is included)

It would be impossible to go into this topic in depth and look at each of the ethics complaints against Sarah Palin in a single post, so I'll make list and focus on the most important of the lot.

1) 7/28/08 filed by Alaska Legislature - Abuse of Power re: firing Walt Monegan (aka Troopergate).
10/10/08 Sarah Palin found guilty of abuse of power for permitting husband and staff to harangue Monegan about the trooper.

2) 8/06/08 filed by Andree McLeod (AK resident) - Undue influence exerted by Palin and staff to get a job for a Palin supporter.
Palin staff member advised to take ethics training.

3) 8/20/08 filed by Brian Kraft (AK resident) - Breaking election law by taking public position on ballot initiative concerning Pebble Mine.
05/08/09 Complaint rejected by APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission).

4) 9/02/08 filed by Sarah Palin (AK resident) - Self-disclosure filing with AK Personnel Board (re: Troopergate).
11/03/08 Personnel Board found no abuse of power for Sarah Palin letting aides and husband hassle Monegan, but also, no investigation of who committed perjury in their contradictory sworn statements, Palin or Monegan.

5) 9/03/08 filed by PSEA (AK Public Safety Employees Association) - Improper disclosure of the trooper's personnel records and amended to include allegation of harassment (bundled with charge #4)
11/03/08 Dismissed together with #4 by AK Personnel Board.

6) 10/13/08 Filed by Walt Monegan (AK resident) - Request by filer for a hearing to clear his name (it had been sullied by Palin and staff).
11/03/08 AK Personnel Board said there was no legal basis or jurisdiction for a hearing on this matter.

7) 10/23/08 filed by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics) - Expensive wardrobe purchased for Sarah Palin with donor money violates FEC regulations.
05/19/09 FEC ruled "party money" is not covered in ban.

8) 10/24/08 unnamed filer - Abuse of power for charging AK for children's travel.
02/23/09 AK Personnel Board negotiated settlement wherein Sarah Palin paid $10,000 to reimburse for costs.

9) 11/14/08 Filed by Zane Henning (AK resident) - Alleged abuse of office by doing "post-election damage control" in interviews from Governor's office.
03/23/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

10) 12/02/08 filed by Anthony Martin (AK resident) - Sarah Palin violated ethics by campaigning for Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
03/23/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

11) 12/18/08 unnamed filer - Alleged misuse of funds by allowing her picture to be used to promote Alaska seafood in national publications while also promoting her national political ambitions.
01/12/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

12) 01/12/09 filed by Edna Birch - Interference in job hiring.
02/20/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board because filer failed to use a real name.

13) 01/26/09 filed by Andree McLeod (AK resident) - Palin aide Bill McAllister worked on state time to benefit Palin's extra-AK political interests. PENDING

14) 01/26/09 filed by Andree McLeod (AK resident) - Palin aide Kris Perry worked on state time to benefit Palin's extra-AK political interests.
06/05/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

15) 03/18/09 filed by Andree McLeod (AK resident) - Improper use of state resources for partisan political purposes.
05/27/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

16) 03/24/09 filed by Linda Kellen Biegel (AK resident) - Conflict of interest by advertising for husband's sponsor by wearing Arctic Cat gear during official duties.
06/02/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

17) 04/22/09 filed by Sondra Tompkins (AK resident) - SarahPAC constitutes ethics violation by misusing official position and accepting outside employment.
05/08/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board.

18) 04/27/09 filed by Kim Chatman (AK resident) - Alaska Fund Trust (AFT) violates ethics rules by funneling improper gifts to Sarah Palin.
06/24/2010 PALIN SETTLES - has to return $386,000 because AFT declared illegal.

19) 07/06/09 filed by Zane Henning (AK resident) - Illegal continuation of per diem collection when Sarah Palin's home is less than 50 miles from Anchorage office. PENDING

20) 07/10/09 filed by Ray Ward (AK resident) - Illegal compensation collected by Sarah Palin for giving radio and television interviews since '08 campaign ended.
07/15/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board (in part for not being properly notarized).

21) 07/14/09 filed by Andree McCleod (AK resident) - Failure to transfer power to Lt. Gov during '08 campaign, while collecting salary during "off duty" status.
07/24/09 Dismissed by AK Personnel Board as legally flawed.

22) 07/20/09 filed by Andree McCleod (AK resident) - Failure to disclose gifts within 30 days of receipt. PENDING

I suspect the complaints marked as PENDING were resolved in Sarah Palin's favour. I tried to find up-to-date information, but the trail went cold. One possibility is that the state is holding back, waiting for the two years after her resignation to expire so she would no longer be held accountable.

Most of these complaints have something in common, in that they were investigated and resolved by a personnel board appointed by the governor. The other thing they all have in common is the blurring of boundaries, a useful smokescreen to conceal unethical practices.

Linda Kellen Biegel (complaint #16) wrote about how Sarah Palin's chief of staff Mike Nizich encouraged a backlash against Alaska citizens who challenged the governor's unethical behaviour. Sarah Palin regularly bragged about each dismissed complaint in press releases on her governor's website.

The most interesting complaints are the ones where Sarah Palin was found to be at fault (in her book that means exonerated).

Troopergate may come to the forefront yet again. Sarah Palin was found guilty in an independent, bi-partisan report and not guilty by her Personnel Board. Now a major player in the fiasco, Frank Bailey, is prepared to disclose a ton of evidence that confirms that there was indeed abuse of power and a great deal of harassement of some people by the Palins. Alaska Dispatch has already disclosed some passages (you will need to register to read it) from Bailey's manuscript and it appears there's a sequel to the original Troopergate, this time involving a "hiring" instead of a "firing," indicating another instance of abuse of power. It seems Judge Morgan Christen was appointed to the Supreme Court as a reward for siding with Sarah Palin's sister Molly in the custody battle with Mike Wooten.

Complaint # 18 is another interesting one. We don't have a way of finding out if the money was indeed returned to the donors. As they're what we call "palinbots," I don't think they would come forward to say they have not been reimbursed. The new Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund website doesn't publish any financial disclosures or reports, so it's impossible to tell how well the fund is doing.

The original Alaska Fund Trust, with Kristan Cole as the sole trustee, failed to publish a detailed account of donations as she had promised, so we can't tell if the $386,000 figure quoted above is in any way accurate. Is it possible that a lot more was collected and the balance is nowhere to be found? When it comes to Sarah Palin and Kristan Cole, we can't be blamed for having suspicious minds...

The outcome of complaint #19 is unclear. It was filed three days after her first quitter speech on Lake Lucille and I couldn't find any resolution, for or against Sarah Palin (see above). In February 2009 she was told to pay back taxes on at least $17,000 per diem.

We discussed complaint #8 already and it raised a few questions, as usual.

Sarah Palin invited the citizens of Alaska to hold her accountable. She ran her campaign for governor on a platform of transparency and accountability, as an ethics champion. Then she found it impossible to govern Alaska because too many citizens took her at her word. She quit.

Uh?


The Branchflower report on Troopergate may be downloaded from the sidebar.

Andrée McLeod calls on Alaska Legislature to appoint Special Prosecutor in order to investigate corruption in the "Parnell-Palin Administration"

Andrée McLeod today sent the following letter to the Alaska Legislature:

+++

Senate President Stevens and House Speaker Chenault:

I call on you to appoint a Special Prosecutor with full subpoena and investigative powers to investigate the systemic corruption in the Parnell-Palin Administration. It is the Parnell-Palin Administration because, even though he is acting Governor, Sean Parnell has kept the Palin Administration in place.

The State Ethics Board is impotent and Ethics Board attorney Tim Petumenos, as vice president of the law firm Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot, contracts with the state for bond counsel and civil work. Petumenos will not do anything to endanger those contracts since, as a shareholder, he shares in the income generated from those contracts. That is one reason he white-washed Palin’s Troopergate, Lamal hire at DOT, family travel and legal defense fund inquiries.

Andrée McLeod

Matters to be addressed by the Special Prosecutor:

1. Whether DNR Commissioner Marty Rutherford steered the gas line project to her former client, Trans-Canada. The Special Prosecutor would investigate to determine, among other things, if Trans-Canada played a role in drafting AGIA and whether Rutherford breached her duty to the state by sharing confidential information regarding any aspect of AGIA with Trans-Canada.

2. Why Joe Balash has been kept on the State Gas Line Team after had been offered a job by Enstar even though the Gas Line Team’s work involves Enstar.

3. Whether the state procurement codes were violated by the RFP processes employed by DNR and the Department of Revenue for contracts related to in-state gas line work.

4. Whether Enstar influenced any of the RFP awards related to in-state gasline work.

5. Whether Todd Palin violated state statutes by lobbying state employees on commercial fishing issues that directly related to his commercial set net operations.

6. What role DNR Commissioner Tom Irwin played in the hiring of his former boss Steve Haagenson as Executive Director of the Alaska Energy Authority. Also, whether Irwin used his state office to help orchestrate the give-away of the Healy Clean Coal Plant to his former employer Golden Valley Electric Association.

7. Answers to questions about the Healy Clean Coal Plant raised by Andrew Halcro (see HERE and HERE)

8. Whether Jim Palin (Todd Palin’s father) lobbied the state administration on behalf of Golden Valley Electric regarding the Healy Clean Coal plant.

9. Whether Revenue Commissioner Pat Galvin breached the State’s obligation for good faith and fair dealing when he unilaterally terminated contracts between AIDEA and Homer Electric for the restart and sale of the Healy Clean Coal Plant. (Galvin to Nordmark/Debnam 12-30-08 letter attached)

10. Why Sean Parnell and Revenue Commissioner Pat Galvin repeatedly refuse to disclose the identity of the 15 new oil and gas explorers who received $193,000,000 million dollars in cash, as stated in this July 10, 2009 Department of Revenue press release. (Jul 10 2009 press release attached) - Note by Patrick: See the extensive reporting by Palingates about this matter HERE

11. Whether Governor Parnell violated state statutes by engaging four state employees (Joe Balash, Gene Therriault, Pete Kelly and Curtis Thayer) as deputy campaign treasurers for his re-election campaign. Balash, Therriault and Kelly were all directly supervised in their state jobs by Parnell. (Deputy Campaign Treasurers list attached)

12. Whether Parnell violated state statutes by hiring Curtis Thayer as Deputy Commissioner of Commerce shortly after Thayer coordinated Parnell’s first major in-state fundraiser in Anchorage for his re-election campaign. Thayer has little to no economic development experience and has been involved for many years in political fundraising for Republicans and in government relations for Enstar.

13. Whether Governor’s staff member Joe Balash was moved from Fairbanks to Anchorage recently at state expense and for the purpose of working on Parnell’s re-election campaign. If it is important for Balash to work in Anchorage re: his state duties, why was he allowed to work out of his home community in Fairbanks for the past three years?

14. Who directed state employees Joe Balash and Curtis Thayer to call lobbyists and other potential campaign donors who had appropriations in the state’s proposed FY 2011 capital budget and advise them to come to a Parnell fundraiser at Bill Sheffield’s house just days before the capital budget was signed. Were promises and threats made by these state employees regarding quid pro quo’s of state appropriations for campaign donations? Were these calls made on state time and on state telephones?

15. Whether Governor Parnell violated state law by orchestrating, with the participation of campaign donors Peggy Brown and Susan Christianson, state-funded ads by a private non-profit corporation that supported his re-election campaign platform against domestic violence? Whether the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault violate their state grant agreement intermingling state monies with the in-kind contributions, discounts and freebies from unidentified sources they collected for the production and airing of these ads? Did Parnell violate federal campaign laws by contributing $15,000 from his remaining 2008 Congressional campaign funds to the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault after they aired the ads in question? Was this an attempt to skirt laws against the use of federal campaign funds to support a state campaign? Did Parnell also violate federal campaign laws by having the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault use film footage in their ad campaign that was also used in Parnell’s 2008 Congressional campaign ads? Were Parnell campaign donations from Brown and Christianson in December 2009 just before the ads aired evidence of an orchestrated effort to use state funds through a private non-profit corporation to support his re-election campaign? Was Parnell telling the truth in 2000 when he denied a family history of domestic violence in a Juneau Empire Article or in 2010 when he describes a family history of domestic violence in these ads? (Brown and Christianson contributions, FEC Report, Apr 2000 article, KTUU Feb 2010 report attached)

16. Whether Bill McAllister, Mike Nizich and Linda Perez violated state rules and laws when Bill McAllister received his salary while he traveled to Sweden on a family vacation upon being hired in July of 2008…without submitting any leave slips. (Nizich-McAllister stranded in Sweden email attached)

17. Whether laws were violated when chief of staff Mike Nizich was kept on the ONLY ONE PUBLIC MEMBER SEAT of the Aerospace Development Corporation board, which prohibited a bona fide genuine true member of the public from being appointed to the board.

18. And lastly, where the money trail leads with the whole Matanuska Maid affair - Note by Patrick: See the extensive reporting by Palingates about "Dairygate" HERE

There is much in the Parnell-Palin administration that needs looking into. A Special Prosecutor appointed by you will go a long way to correct the unacceptable course of the Parnell-Palin administration.

All too often, legislators have ignored what’s been right under their nose. But, it was Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, “The time is always right to do what is right.”

Do right by your constituents. Be good stewards. Exercise your charge. Appoint a Special Counsel so the people within the Parnell-Palin administration who are responsible for inappropriate conduct and improper actions can be held accountable. Maybe then, Alaskans might feel like they have been made whole.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns.

Andrée McLeod

+++

Read all posts by Palingates regarding Andrée McLeod and her discoveries, court cases and ethics complaints (CLICK)

.

Sarah Palin's executive style did not serve the interests of Alaskans - New ethics complaint

As we're having an "ethics feast", I must say that we have more to reveal about Andrée McLeod's adventures in Alaska. Until not that long ago, she and Sarah Palin were political allies.

Sarah Palin has no qualms about throwing former political allies under the bus. Compare these quotes (just a few examples from a number of e-mails sent by Sarah Palin to Andrée McLeod between 2002 and 2005) to Thomas Van Flein's description of the same person in a recent note on Palin's Facebook page.

Sarah Palin:

"Did you hear us talking about you on the Mike Pocaro show Monday evening?! It was a hoot! He was impressed with your efforts on the VanEten issue & I called in to say "Kudos to Andree... she's obviously got tireless energy and desire to keep government and government officials accountable to Alaskans... we need more "Andrees" in this state... etc..." And then that gal, "Michelle" (who calls in a lot) called right after I did to say, "Sarah Palin just needs to stay out of Anchorage politics... blah blah blah..." and the show went on with you as the highlight for callers! It was awesome. Ya' done good again!!!"

"You will be thanked for summing up for others what many believe: that there's nothing wrong with healthy debate and challenges to the status quo when something is wrong & it can easily be fixed!"

"Holy Moly you are powerful regarding getting the word out to the press about questionable activity!"

Thomas Van Flein, referring to the mounting number of ethics complaints against his client, the excuse given for quitting as governor of Alaska (reference to Andrée in bold) :

"The past year has confirmed that Governor Palin was right. The number of false claims, records requests, mendacious accusations and ridiculous posturing by the left and street corner ethicists dropped dramatically – at least as applied to the mechanics of state government."

Andrée McLeod is still interested in the mechanics of state government. We have received more communications that highlight Sarah Palin's "executive" experience and how the present administration continues to employ the same tactics as the former governor.

Sarah Palin with Bill McAllister

As the CEO of Alaska, as Sarah likes to put it, she didn't reward her minions with golden parachutes (no room for parachutes under the bus...). Bill McAllister was rewarded at the start of his stint as Sarah Palin's spokesperson in clear violation of Alaska's ethics rules and personnel rules. Andrée has filed a complaint which has received no attention at all from the Alaska media. Surprise, surprise!

June 7, 2010

Anchorage, Alaska: An ethics complaint has been filed with the attorney general’s office by Alaska resident Andrée McLeod charging Department of Law spokesman and former Palin Communications Director Bill McAllister with misuse of official position and receipt of improper gifts. Also named in the complaint for violations of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act are the Palin/Parnell governor’s chief of staff Mike Nizich and governor’s office administrative director Linda Perez.

The attached complaint relates to McAllister’s abrupt absence from his job upon being hired by Sarah Palin on July 21, 2008. “Unless there was some official state of Alaska business in Sweden that simply couldn’t wait, it would seem McAllister was handsomely rewarded by Palin with a paid vacation when he was first hired in July of 2008,” McLeod said.

McAllister went on a family vacation overseas although state laws and regulations forbid it. “State employees know, especially long-time employees Nizich and Perez, that leave can’t be taken within the first 30 days of employment,” McLeod said. “Yet, McAllister was authorized to fly out of the country without having any leave slips or travel authorizations on file. How long was he gone? I don’t know as Palin/Parnell’s chief of staff and his staff refuse to admit he was even gone…even though email records clearly show they knew he was staying at a cabin in Sweden.”

McLeod said, “This is akin to stealing from the state. This blatant breach of the public’s trust was avoidable had Palin and staffers put McAllister on the payroll three weeks later as she implied in an August 12, 2008 press release. What was the rush and why lie about it afterwards? These people knew what they were doing, and knew it was wrong.”

Since McAllister only started handing in leave slips in March of 2010, after McLeod started asking questions, McLeod also asked the attorney general to investigate McAllister’s other nonattendance, including the period while he was gravely ill during 2008 and 2009. Records show that although McAllister had not submitted leave slips before March 2010, he did cash out over 125 hours of leave worth more that $6,600 in 2009 alone.

On the same note: the state’s personnel board adopted an amendment to 2 AAC 08.065 on Friday, June 4, 2010 and voted to eliminate the restriction on the number of leave cash-ins an employee may be granted in a leave year.

Download the full ethics complaint HERE.

Mike Nizich makes another appearance in Sarah Palin's irregular practices, as detailed below. This is the same Mike Nizich who made this statement regarding the piling ethics complaints against Sarah Palin: "I hope that the publicity-seekers will face a backlash from Alaskans who have a sense of fair play and proportion."

Sarah Palin with Mike Nizich

But Andrée McLeod doesn't give up, even when faced with a backlash. She told us:

This is a very important issue that speaks to the integrity of a state board…the Aerospace Development Corporation.

Per AS 14.40.826, there is only one public member on that board. But governor chief of staff Mike Nizich has occupied that since December 2006. The governor basically had a seat at the table and took the place of a public member. Nizich was appointed to the seat on December 4, 2006, two days before Sarah Palin started her half term as governor. He was then deputy chief of staff, appointed by Frank Murkowski. Palin should have removed Nizich from the board when she decided to keep him on as deputy chief of staff. But she didn’t.

Michael A. Nizich
Public
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001

Mike Nizich became acting chief of staff on the resignation of Mike Tibbles in May 2008 and officially appointed to the post in August 2008. And Palin still didn’t remove him.

Andrée continues:

That is not right…and it definitely doesn’t square nor look favorably on her pronouncements of being on the people’s side looking out for their interests…SHE LET HER OFFICE TAKE UP THE ONLY PUBLIC MEMBER SEAT.

This board oversees MILLIONS of dollars… and no public oversight….

As CEO of the State of Alaska…Palin violated AS 4.40.826 by keeping her deputy chief of staff on the board.

Just imagine the possibilities… of what Palin would do as commander in chief of the American military… when she won’t even follow the rule of law when it comes to this public entity under her watch and would not allow public oversight nor allow a member of the public to be on this board… but rather, kept her chief of staff on it, rendering public oversight inoperative.

The issue is still not resolved and, in true Alaska fashion, anybody who asks questions is stonewalled until the questions are rendered irrelevant. Mike Nizich's stint on the board expires on July 1, 2010.

Here's a letter Andrée wrote to Gov Parnell on June 18, 2010:

Dear Governor Parnell Sean,

Still no response to the question I asked you on back in March. Why have you not removed your chief of staff from the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation? Why have you kept Mike Nizich on the Alaska Aerospace Corporation as he occupies the ONLY one allotted public member slot on that board…which violates AS 14.40.826. The gov’s office doesn’t have a seat on the board. When are you going to give a real, bona fide and genuine member of the public a chance to serve on the AADC as is set forth in Alaska statute?

Documents received from your office show that citizen Nizich did not take leave for his Aerospace Development Corp. activities…and that chief of staff Nizich attended those meetings. Minutes also reflect that he represents the gov’s office as he clearly states that he would report back to the governor…and not the people of Alaska.

This is a HUGE conflict of interest as there is ONLY one allotted public member slot on that board, per AS 14.40.826. This board oversees a huge amount of public dollars funneled to the private sector. The presence of high-priced lobbyists at these meetings clearly demonstrates the significance of $$ that relates to this board. Where is the public oversight???? The chief of staff's continued presence on that board in the ONLY public member slot violates Sec. 14.40.826 and renders public oversight inoperative.

The board's integrity is disabled and its mandate is compromised by the chief of staff taking up the ONLY public member position on the board. So, when will you enable the AADC board to be above-board, remove your chief of staff, and appoint a real, genuine and bona fide member of the public to the Alaska Aerospace Corporation, per AS 14.40.826?

Sincerely,
Andrée McLeod

Andrée made this observation:

The thing about the AADC (Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation) is that, through a quick review of their minutes for the last four years, there are high-powered lawyers and lobbyists in attendance as guests… which means they are chasing the large amounts of FED $$$. And Palin just continued the politics as usual…

We all know that Sarah Palin has a very strange relationship with ethics: as mayor of Wasilla, as governor of Alaska and as a private citizen.


Sarah Palin's readiness to depart from the ethics rules upon stepping into her governorship, a practice which continued throughout her aborted term in that office and beyond, involving multitude* of irregularities, gives us a glimpse into what kind of "CEO" she would make if given the chance to run the whole country.

(* Dairygate, Troopergate, children's travel, per diems, Alaska Fund Trust, property taxes, Big Oil, Pebble Mine... the list is very long. Please refer to "The Palingates" on the sidebar.)
.

Sarah Palin's gift to Alaska

Alaska has very strange laws and their judges make some strange decisions. Andree McLeod filed a lawsuit in October 2008 regarding Sarah Palin's use of private e-mail accounts to conduct state business. This practice keeps communications out of the public records. Not an example of open and transparent government, which was one of the cornerstones of Sarah Palin's campaign for governor of Alaska.

Not surprisingly, Andree lost. Superior Court Judge Patrick McKay ruled in favour of former governor Sarah Palin. It may not have any bearing on this case, but it's interesting to know that Judge McKay has two charges of drunk driving against him. He was arrested in 1988 and again in August 2009.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Patrick McKay has been charged with drunk driving.

The officer put the 56-year-old judge under arrest and took him to the Anchorage Jail where he was later released on $500 bail. His arraignment is scheduled for Oct. 14.

This is the second time McKay has been charged with drunk driving. In 1988, he was convicted and served the mandatory three days in jail.

McKay has been a Superior Court judge since 2005 when he was appointed by Gov. Frank Murkowski.

+++

One issue Sarah Palin exploited during her campaign in 2006 was ethics. Her first legislative action after taking office was to push for a bipartisan ethics reform bill. But openness and transparency didn't apply to her and neither did the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. When Alaskans took issue with their governor's conduct, they were branded partisan, malicious and frivolous in Sarah Palin's many irate press releases.

One of the reasons she gave for her resignation last summer was the number of such "malicious" attacks, even though she got away with the majority of the ethics complaints against her and managed to spin the ones where she had to repay the state for her children's travel on the state's dime, for example.



Sarah Palin said she was resigning for the good of Alaska. Her legacy of "putting Alaska's interests first" continues to have precisely the opposite effect. Her histrionics inspired some lawmakers to propose changes to the ethics rules, which would result in less transparency, less accountability and avoidance of responsibility in the part of public officals. They proposed that any ethics complaints should remain secret until the Personnel Board decided to publish their findings and that any person filing a complaint should remain bound by confidentiality or risk having it summarily dismissed.

Sarah Palin made quite a song and dance about the huge financial burden imposed on herself and her family as a result of the ethics complaints against her. In order to remedy that, she started a "legal" fund to collect money from her misguided supporters. The trust document was written in such a way as to make the money available to herself and members of her family for any purpose. Ironically, the fund is frozen, pending the outcome of an ethics complaint.

Some of the changes proposed by the lawmakers above would make any worries about taking responsibility and footing the bill for wrongdoing a thing of the past.

(2) 9 AAC 52.040 is proposed to be changed by adding new provisions establishing standards for the conditions when the acceptance or approval of state money to pay on behalf of, or reimburse a public officer for, expenses incurred for professional legal services to defend against a complaint brought under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52) may occur, including when the public officer is exonerated of any violation of the Act.

The much maligned but tenacious Andree McLeod took exception to this proposal:

The AEBEA states that: (7) compliance with a code of ethics is an individual responsibility; thus all who serve the state have a solemn responsibility to avoid improper conduct and prevent improper behavior by colleagues and subordinates. That individual responsibility includes the individual's choice to seek legal council, thereby, they alone should be responsible for expenses incurred by their choice. Secondly, these past 15 months or so have shown, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that there is an inherent and systemic breach in the way and manner ethics complaints are processed, and summarily dismissed. The biased and subjective manner in which the Department of Law deals with ethics complaints is one that must be drastically changed before any state funds are appropriated to cover legal expenses of public officials who conduct themselves unethically. Instead, they are protected and defended by a flawed and corrupt complaint process where the person(s) investigating the misconduct of other public officials is situated within the chain of command of their bosses and their bosses' bosses. The reports that dismiss every complaint I have filed are the best examples that illustrate the dysfunctions that occur when "the Fox Watches the Hen House".

Another proposal is about gifts of travel:

5) 9 AAC 52.060 is proposed to be changed to clarify the application of AS 39.52.130, addressing gifts to a public officer. 9 AAC 52.060(b) currently permits agency heads to determine that a gift of travel received by an employee traveling on state business is a gift to the state, not a personal gift to the employee. The proposed amendment would clarify that the individual employee does not have to submit a disclosure for pre-approved state travel relating to offers by others made in advance to pay travel expenses of a state employee to facilitate state business.

Andree chips in again:

"The important question I have is: Had this regulation (5) been in place already...would it have meant that Kris Perry would NOT have had to claim as gifts all those gifts of travel, lodging, and meals she claimed from the McCain and Chambliss campaigns?"

I submit by example: Kris Perry claimed over $15,000 in gifts for travel, lodging, etc. from the McCain and Chambliss campaigns while she "facilitated state business" and traveled from one end of the country to the other on the very partisan very political Republican vice-presidential campaign trail. Were this regulation in place…the public would NEVER have known the extent of those gratuities that were offered and accepted by this governor's staffer. Keeping these kinds of gifts a secret and under the cloak of secrecy is unacceptable, does not serve the Alaskan public's better interests, and totally violates the intent and objectives of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, AND the Alaska Public Official Financial Disclosure Act.

These changes happen to come along at the same time a governor decided to pursue interests other than being governor. The premise of most of my complaints is found within the many conflicts of interests that resulted because of Sarah Palin's extra curricular activites that had absolutely nothing to do with her role as governor. These changes to the AEBEA regulations do nothing to better define, refine, avoid and resolve those conflicts of interests.

Andree, unlike the ex-governor, sticks to her guns when it comes to the true purpose of ethics rules:

The AG and his staff's time would be better spent on finding ways to make the ethics complaint process free from the biases inherent in the system currently in place….and strengthen the statutes, policies, procedures, and protocols in place to address the chaos that ensues when a governor chooses to put their personal and political interests before the interests of the public when they make deals with other Outside interests and abandon the Office of the Governor and its constitutional duties…to follow their self-proclaimed providential destinies. These regulation changes above merely weaken the AEBEA and its intent…and should be thrown out. Time would be better spent to find ways to better enforce the good ethics laws already in place.

Sarah Palin made a mockery of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. The lawmakers had a golden opportunity to address some of the flaws in the act, such as governors being investigated by their own appointees, a clear example of conflict of interests. Instead, they are doing their very best to ensure that present and future governors and other public officials can indulge in unethical behaviour in lawful secrecy and be paid by the state to do so.

Only in Sarah Palin's Alaska!
.

Andree McLeod files new ethics complaint regarding Sarah Palin's "Alaska Fund Trust"

The news came in just a few minutes ago! Andree McLeod has filed a new ethics complaint, and this time the topic is particularly delicate: She challenges Sarah Palin's legal defense fund, the so-called "Alaska Fund Trust" (we call it "slush-fund").

This brings back fond memories of the most devastating ethics complaint against Sarah Palin to date, in which earlier this year State Personnel Board investigator Thomas Daniel found there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain (see HERE and HERE). It has even been speculated that this ethics complaint, which was filed by Kim Chatman, could have contributed to Sarah Palin quitting her job as Governor - just today for example by Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish!

EDIT:

Download of Andree McLeod's ethics complaint: Here is the new download link!

The press release by Andree McLeod reads:

Anchorage, Alaska : An ethics complaint has been filed with the attorney general’s office by Alaska resident and registered Republican Andrée McLeod charging ex-governor Sarah Palin with continued violations of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

The attached complaint relates to Palin’s already established unethical legal defense fund. A July 21, 2009 independent investigation report that relates to this same fund already found probable cause that Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act while she abused her position for personal gain and secured unwarranted benefits for herself, her family and other undisclosed public officials.

“Palin continues to compromise the integrity of our Governor’s Office,” Andrée McLeod says. “She continues to misuse her official position even though she was told it is wrong to do.”

The Alaska Fund Trust website, which still accepts contributions, describes her as the current governor of Alaska , even though Palin quit last July.

McLeod continued, “What we have is the epitome of a culture of corruption. Why do public officials permit Palin to get away with bad behavior? Why does justice not prevail on the side of the people in the follow through of what has already been established as an unscrupulous pot of money? We still don’t know how much has been collected during her term and whose been paid from the fund? Why does the administration continue to protect and defend Sarah Palin, even when she’s caught, red-handed, selling out the Office of the Governor?”

Please click on the title of the blog post or CLICK HERE before using the toolbar below for sharing.

Sarah Palin's blurred boundaries

Sarah and Todd Palin are a very close couple when it comes to mixing business with personal stuff. There are a few articles around that illustrate the blurring of ethical boundaries during Sarah Palin's short time in office.

Blow-Pop-Palin has a well sourced post about Todd as the shadow governor and his involvement in Troppergate. One of the links will take you to Syrin's blog and her posts from September last year, when Troopergate was a hot topic.

EyeOnYou did a lot of digging on the Arctic Cat deals, as shown in the comments which appeared in the last thread:

There are no previous indications (including previous disclosure forms) that Todd Palin was under a confidential contract with Arctic Cat, so that would only have happened last season/year. Last year, the day before the election, Scott Davis filed for a business license in the name of Davis/Palin Race Team with Scott Davis as the sole owner. This is a first as well since Scott and Todd have been partners for 7 years now, with no indications that Todd works for Scott.

These are good indicators that something changed dramatically this last year and I think that we all know what that was. Sarah Palin got nominated for the VP slot on the republican ticket and Todd Palin, being her husband, generated a TON of publicity for Arctic Cat due to that, which in turn would mean a much better sponsorship deal for Todd & Scott. In order to avoid disclosure showing that, Scott created the business, listing himself as sole owner of that business, implying that Todd was simply an employee and therefore not able to disclose the deal. When that failed to work with APOC, the Palin clan came up with this generalized statement without giving any specific numbers for the sponsorship. But they forget that Palin admitted to getting free snowmachines that Todd rejected the year before, and they also seem to forget that the Sports Illustrated article about Todd & the Iron Dog gave a lot of information about just how little $$ Todd & Scott pay out for the race, especially in comparison to other racers.

If you do a search on those licenses it will show previous and expired licenses as well as current ones and there is absolutely nothing showing a business license for Todd & Scott for years previous to 2008, so that tells us this was a new happenstance and not something done previously that was just renewed.

Here is a video showing Sarah admitting how she "inherits" the snowmachines from Todd's previous years rejects:



The telling info from the Sports Illustrated article:

Some Iron Doggers have spent upwards of $30,000 to finance a once-in-a-lifetime run into the wild heart of Alaska. Tapping their credit cards, they've shelled out $10,000 each for a 2009 snow machine, $10,000 more for an identical training sled, $2,500 for the race entry fee and a few thousand more for trailing airplane support. Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing. They are prodigiously sponsored, with their names monogrammed in script on their matching Arctic Cat jackets. (Palin even has the names of his five kids and his wife, SARAH, THE GOV, appliquéd on his snow machine hood.) They give inspirational speeches at trade shows. They are both adored and reviled. They are the New York Yankees of snow machining.

EyeOnYou also wrote a very good note on Facebook, demonstrating how Sarah Palin, "the Arctic Cat billboard", enhanced the benefits Todd received from AC, therefore enhancing the benefits to herself as family income.

We know that Palin can increase sales on anything she wears. Sales of the glasses that she wears went through the roof, and the shoes she opts to wear brought about an increase of sales, so it does make one wonder why you would not expect the same results when she wears Arctic Cat Gear. Or any other brand name of clothing. Her fans rush out and buy the same items to be like her. Why else do companies provide sponsorship deals with celebrities? To increase sales.

Considering that in previous disclosure forms, the Palins' had no problem issuing a dollar amount on their forms for the Arctic Cat sponsorship, it is reasonable to conclude that the sponsorship increased due to Sarah gaining the nomination for VP and wearing the Gear during the Iron Dog race this year. She and her daughter Piper were decked out head to toe in the Arctic Cat Gear, unlike previous years.

What's wrong with her doing this?

Well, she was there in her capacity as Governor and she is wearing clothing from the company that pays her husband. That is just a bit more than unethical. She is a walking billboard for this company and no doubt this helped her family out financially. Would any of the other team sponsors have liked to have the Governor wear their clothing? No doubt. Free publicity for them, but she wore the clothing of her husband's team, which, had she been a private citizen no one could or should complain about, but she wasn't a private citizen at the time, she was the Governor and that company was paying her husband (and by extension...her).

What we conclude from all of the above is that just as Todd Palin was a shadow governor, Sarah Palin was a shadow member of Arctic Cat, at least since the vice presidential campaign.

The Personnel Board decided that Sarah Palin didn't act unethically in the Troopergate scandal but that her husband crossed the line. As Todd was never a state official, it didn't matter. Very neat.

The same Personnel Board didn't see anything wrong with the free advertising for Arctic Cat. Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the company. She was cold and just being supportive of her husband.

I don't know how much truth there is in the divorce rumours, but theirs appears to be a match made in heaven. When it comes to crossing the lines of ethical conduct, they're very much together...
.

Sarah Palin, you're not funny anymore

I was trying to imagine Sarah Palin's twit - if she went back to it - about the APOC deadline to disclose Arctic Cat deals and the gifts from last year. (The deadline is today)

"Offered to pay massive amount of cash as goodwill gesture. No evidence of wrongdoing, as usual. I win again!" sometime ago from QuitterBerry

I really don't like her ghostwritten page on Facebook. It's too boring, without any entertainment value whatsoever. When Sarah Palin lied on Twitter, at least she used her own inimitable style and we were treated to William Shatner reading her twits as poetry every now and then.

She broke another promise. Where are the politically incorrect twits?

The only thing Sarah Palin is good for is keeping us amused. If she can't even have the courtesy of writing her own notes on Facebook, then she's good for nothing.

I'm very disappointed...

Celtic Diva has more details about the APOC stone in Sarah's shoe...
.

Sarah Palin's rainbows

The ugliness going on this past week around some right wing blogs is quite disturbing. $arah Palin talked about the politics of personal destruction. She should know. There are many casualties of personal destruction lining the path of her own political career.

We've seen recent examples of how it works: she raises the bait, then lets her supporters run the show. Letterman, Linda Kellen Biegel, Gryphen... who's next? We saw a late night joke become a major issue involving statutory rape, a silly photoshop turned into the desecration of an iconic image and a mention of a possible split between the quitter governor and her husband is now a hanging offense.

As her fans are the ones asking for people's heads, she can be all innocent, claiming to have no connections to any of these lunatics. She's the victim. Always.

While people are distracted by these hyperbolic witch hunts, not much attention is being paid to the real issues. She who farts rainbows is facing serious charges: failure to disclose gifts, quoting the wrong statute to get away with the Arctic Cat financial disclosure, an unethical "legal fund" and now allegations of bribery in connection with a court case.

Those rainbow farts don't really smell of roses, do they?
.

Sarah Palin's smokescreens

ADN on August 4, 2009:

The Alaska Public Offices Commission has refused Palin's request to keep secret the discounts that come from her husband's Arctic Cat sponsorship. APOC also said Palin needs to disclose all the gifts she received last year, rejecting her interpretation that she doesn't need to until after she gets around to actually opening the gifts.

Palin has told APOC "there are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008."

APOC is giving Palin until Aug. 17 to make public "information related to the dollar amount of the discounts from Arctic Cat," as well as any gifts received in 2008 that she has not reported, said Holly Hill, the agency's director. Hill found that the state law Palin cited in arguing for an exemption from the Arctic Cat disclosure "only protects information submitted under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, and does not apply in this matter."

Palin's lawyer, Tom Van Flein, did not respond this week to questions about APOC's decision.

There are so many issues regarding $arah Palin clouded by smoke and mirrors... the latest brouhaha about suing Gryphen for mentioning a split between the quitter governor and her husband comes across as a tactic to divert the public's attention from more serious matters.

The hysteria seems to be widespread, with Bill O'Reilly saying Gryphen's post was a vicious attack on $arah Palin. How does a reference to a possible marital split qualify as an attack? What's vicious about it?

$arah Palin's supporters are blowing a trivial matter out of all proportion.

Are they going to report on APOC's deadline? Are they going to point out that $arah Palin is nearly one year late reporting the gifts? APOC have already cut her some slack, asking her to simply amend her financial disclosure even though gifts have to be reported within a certain period. Less than a month, if I remember it correctly.

Thomas Van Flein was very quick off the mark in his threats to Gryphen, but can't be bothered to send a reply to APOC.

While everybody is going nuts over a divorce that Gryphen didn't mention at all, $arah Palin's lack of ethics remains in the background, almost ignored...
.

$arah Palin's "legal expense" fund compared to real legal expense funds

Celtic Diva posted an excellent analysis, by a qualified lawyer from the East Coast, of the wording used in the Alaska Fund Trust.

Funnily enough, when I wrote "$arah Palin's legal fund: questions, questions...", I was puzzled by the same passages explored by the lawyer in Diva's article.

I noticed that the purpose of the trust was for the payment of fees incurred as a result of $arah Palin being the governor of Alaska:

OK, the sole purpose of the fund is to provide for the payment of fees incurred by the governor, her family and other covered individuals, blah blah.

I omitted the word legal when referring to fees because I couldn't see the word in the text of the agreement. But the penny didn't drop until I read Diva's article.

They used the expression "legal fees" on the website, but NOT in the actual agreement. Obviously the website is not legally binding, but the trust agreement IS.

Read the purpose of the trust carefully:

The sole and exclusive purpose of this Trust is to provide a proper means for the acceptance of money, property, and services, including, if necessary, pro bono legal services, to provide for all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate fees or charges incurred by (i) SARAH PALIN as a result of the fact that she is Governor of the State of Alaska or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor of the State of Alaska; and (ii) Covered Individuals, that may be selected or designated by the Trustee as provided herein, as a result of or arising out of their association or relationship with or employment by SARAH PALIN, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Alaska.

The main purpose is to provide a proper means for the acceptance of money, property, and services, including, if necessary, pro bono legal services (the the word legal appears here, but it's incidental), followed by: to provide for all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate fees or charges incurred by (i) SARAH PALIN as a result of the fact that she is Governor of the State of Alaska or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor of the State of Alaska (no mention of legal fees), finally extending the benefit of all that lovely money to family and friends selected or designated by the trustee.

It continues in a rambling fashion and does mention legal representation, but only to specify their right to appoint attorneys, negotiate fees etc, for the above purpose, which they were careful to state as fees and charges incurred because $arah is the governor, not that the trust fund exists solely to pay legal expenses. The legal expenses are mentioned in an incidental manner...

In a nutshell: the purpose of the fund is to raise money for $arah Palin, her family and selected friends because she's the governor of Alaska. No strings attached.

We know very well that $arah doesn't like no pesky strings, no siree!

I had a closer look at the other trust agreements offered as examples on the AFT website.

ALL the trusts contain the expression legal expense in their title. $arah's is simply called The Alaska Fund Trust.

The purpose in all the other trusts is clearly specified: to pay legal expenses. In the cases of Stevens and Kerry, the purpose relates to specific proceedings, and in Kerry's case, a specific lawsuit: the Sherwood suit.

None of the other trusts has the Rights of Withdrawal bit:

Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust up to the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year or an amount in cash or other property equal the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year, divided equally among such beneficiaries, or an amount in cash or other property equal to the maximum amount which qualifies for the Federal Gift Tax exclusion (...) and shall be exercisable only by written notice to Trustee of the amount Donee wishes to withdraw, but no purpose for said withdrawal need be shown.

The most transparent and restrictive trust in the history of trusts has no clear purpose other than raise money, property, services, you name it, for $arah Palin, family and friends because she's the governor of Alaska, the name of the Trust doesn't reflect anything to do with legal expenses and provides a lovely way for each of the beneficiaries to access tax free money each year, no questions asked.

They did restrict the donations to a maximum of $150 per donor per year, which is, by sheer coincidence, the maximum value of any gifts before they need to be disclosed to APOC.

Most of the wording of $arah's trust was copied and pasted from some of the other examples, omitting some crucial words and introducing the get money for nothing described above.

I also noticed that $arah's and Clinton's trusts are the only ones that make provision for moving the trust to another jurisdiction. In $arah's case at the discretion of the trustee without notice to the beneficiaries...

The AFT website gives the fund the appearance of being transparent and restrictive, but the text of the actual agreement seems to tell a very different story.

It looks very neat , eh? I pity the poor suckers who sent money to this "legal expense" fund. I hope the handwritten thank you note "signed" by the governor is enough to keep each of them on cloud 9...
.

$arah Palin's legal fund: questions, questions...

$arah Palin is protesting that neither she nor her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, have received any money from the Alaska Fund Trust.

I find the notion that I have taken any action pertaining to the legal defense trust fund misguided and factually in error. I am informed that this fund was created by experienced attorneys in DC and was modeled after other similar funds established for senators and others. The fund itself was not created by me nor is it controlled by me.

(The examples of other legal funds given on the AFT's website are all for federal officials and are all regulated according to federal laws. $arah's legal fund appears to fall outside the scope of any laws...)

Neither I nor my lawyer has received a penny from this fund, and I am informed the Trustee was withholding any action or payment pending final resolution with the Personnel Board. This is the hallmark of legal compliance and prudent conduct.

The "transparent" trust, run by Palin's long time friend Kristan Cole, aims at raising an undisclosed amount of money to pay $arah Palin's legal bills. Nobody really knows the total amount of these bills:

Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, would not give a case-by-case accounting of how Palin has incurred so much legal debt, saying "that type of breakdown is protected by the attorney-client privilege."

The first listing of donors and the amounts given are due in August, although it's not a legal requirement to disclose anything, according to the Newsminer:

Palin's friends and supporters created the legal defense fund in April. It's not known how much it has raised. The trust has no oversight from the state or federal political watchdog agencies.

The Federal Election Commission said the defense fund is a state matter. The Alaska Public Offices Commission, which oversees campaign spending and financial disclosures of state elected officials, has no plan to get involved in regulating it, officials said.

Cole said there are no legal requirements for the trust to register with either agency or to disclose donors. However, Cole said she will list names of all donors and the amounts they gave on the legal defense fund's public Web site four times a year, with the first posting likely in early August.

Without any oversight, are we supposed to take Kristan Cole's word for the total raised to date?

I find the wording of the AFT agreement a bit confusing. Here are the passages I find puzzling:

This Trust Agreement is made in Wasilla, Alaska, as of the22nd day of April, 2009, by and between KRISTAN CHERYL COLE, as Settlor, and KRISTAN CHERYL COLE, as Trustee, establishes THE ALASKA FUND TRUST, a trust for the payment of expenses or amounts incurred, undertaken or paid in connection with claims, allegations, investigations, accusations, complaints, legal inquiries, requests, and proceedings, including the response and defense thereof, arising out of or by virtue of the activities of or performance of duties as, or on Governor Sarah Palin, in her capacity as (or as a result of her being) the Governor of Alaska. Alaska Trust Company shall serve as administrative and custodial manager of the Fund as provided herein below.

Trust Purpose

The sole and exclusive purpose of this Trust is to provide a proper means for the acceptance of money, property, and services, including, if necessary, pro bono legal services, to provide for all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate fees or charges incurred by (i) SARAH PALIN as a result of the fact that she is Governor of the State of Alaska or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor of the State of Alaska; and (ii) Covered Individuals, that may be selected or designated by the Trustee as provided herein, as a result of or arising out of their association or relationship with or employment by SARAH PALIN, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Alaska.

Rights of Withdrawal

Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust up to the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year or an amount in cash or other property equal the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year, divided equally among such beneficiaries, or an amount in cash or other property equal to the maximum amount which qualifies for the Federal Gift Tax exclusion allowed by Section 2503(b) of the Code (currently $13,000 per donor, but such amount shall be adjusted to provide the maximum amount excludable). Except as otherwise provided herein, said power of withdrawal shall not be cumulative from year to year, must be exercised separately for each calendar year in which any such addition or additions are made, and shall be exercisable only by written notice to Trustee of the amount Donee wishes to withdraw, but no purpose for said withdrawal need be shown.

OK, the sole purpose of the fund is to provide for the payment of fees incurred by the governor, her family and other covered individuals, blah blah.

How come the beneficiaries can withdraw up to the maximum amount excludable from the Federal Gift Tax without stating the purpose for the withdrawals?

$arah Palin also protests that she doesn't have anything to do with the running of the trust, so how does she explain this:

Successor Trustees

In the event that the original named Trustee herein shall desire at any time to be relieved of his duties herein, said Trustee may resign by written notice to SARAH PALIN, who may appoint a successor Trustee with the qualifications set forth in paragraph 4 above. In addition, SARAH PALIN shall have the same power to appoint a substitute Trustee in the event of the death, incapacity, or failure to act in accordance with the terms of this instrument of any Trustee. In the event of SARAH PALIN's inability to act as a result of incapacity or other reasonable cause, the proper legal representative of SARAH PALIN shall have the right and authority to seek the appointment of a substitute Trustee.

Another interesting bit:

Trustee's Accounts

The Trustee shall keep (or, in the Trustee's sole and absolute discretion, shall cause others to keep) accurate written records and books of account of the Trustee Estate, showing the manner in which the Trust Estate is invested and all receipts, disbursements, and other transactions involving the Trust Estate. All such records and books of account shall be the property of the Trustee during the duration of this Trust and they, together with the Trust property and all reasonable evidence thereof, plus any accounts, shall not be made available during the Trust term except as hereinabove provided or as may be required by applicable law. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, in no event shall any Trustee at any time acting hereunder be required to make any current or final reports, inventories or accountings to any court.

It's quite obvious that I'm not a lawyer, but I can read English. The terms of this trust always seemed contradictory to me. Maybe a lawyer could guide us through the wording of this agreement and tell us how it makes sense? What are the applicable laws for disclosure of the accounts? The last sentence is particularly interesting: Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, in no event shall any Trustee at any time acting hereunder be required to make any current or final reports, inventories or accountings to any court.

All these points may be moot if the trust is deemed unethical as it may serve no purpose at all. What would happen to the money then? Do they have to give the money back to all the donors? Will they give it to charity? What's the legal status of the trust after July 26?

One more question: even though $arah Palin stated that she has not received any money from the trust, if the trustee made any disbursements for whatever reason, wouldn't it be a no-no? How is the Alaska Trust Company being paid to administer the trust? Are they a charity? If they're not being paid, is the money coming in without anybody keeping a log of the donations?

We know only of $130,000 collected so far, according to the totals published by the people who ran the legal fund begathon. If there's more money in the pot, as John Coale indicated, I would be very curious to know what the total really is and if there were any disbursements since the trust's inception, considering what $arah Palin said: "...and I am informed the Trustee was withholding any action or payment pending final resolution with the Personnel Board."

Will we see any figures and other details in early August? Will we be able to trust the trustee's accounts, if they're published at all? Kristan Cole promised to divulge a list of donors, but not much else...

So many questions...
.